deactivate_payment_link

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deactivates/archives a payment link, implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what 'archive' entails (e.g., hidden vs. deleted). This is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which may cover return values), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but misses key contextual details like parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description doesn't mention any parameters, leaving both 'payment_link_id' and 'deactivate_message' unexplained. However, with only 2 parameters and a baseline of 3 when schema coverage is low but not compensated, the score reflects minimal adequacy without added value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('deactivate (archive)') and resource ('a payment link'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'archive_product' or 'deactivate_coupon', which would require mentioning payment-link-specific context to achieve a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the link must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot deactivate already deactivated links), or comparisons with siblings like 'delete_customer' or 'void_invoice', leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.